[ArGee]

The problem is that you are dealing with Constitutional issues, and Constitutional rights cannot be defined by gender.

Marriage is not a right. It is a licensed privelege.

Idjits screaming about rights is way overused, IMHO.

It is reasonable for us to discuss whether the state should license marriages and what marriages it should license, but we should not be wasting our bandwidth on the non-issue of equal rights.

Shalom.

[NutCrackerBoy]

We should not be wasting our bandwidth on the non-issue of equal rights.

I agree with you but unfortunately we do not have that luxury based on what the Massachusetts SJC has done. It is a given that the concept of equal protection under the law has been interpreted to apply ouside the scope of rights protection, e.g. Bush v. Gore

If equal protection is asserted, which is what the SJC has (preposterously) done, then Luis Gonzalez unfortunately is correct.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Marriage is not a right. It is a licensed privilege."

Then, the issue becomes even clearer.

The Court has found fault with the licensing procedures, and has instructed the government to removed restrictions that create inequities in the licensing for a segment of the citizenry.